Donald Trump hypocrisy

More dubious canonisations: Heads decency loses, tails perversion wins - Sunday 7th to Saturday 27th of October

We had yet another dubious NOChurch canonisation, as Pope Paul VI was canonised by Bergoglio, the man who seems to want to attack Humanae Vitae - pretty much the only thing Pope Paul VI did somewhat right, just about. The miracles attributed to Paul VI are as dubious as his character, but that didn't stop NOChurch from counting them as genuine, and using them as proof for his sanctity; these people are nothing if not relentless in their quest to destory all things Catholic.

Needless to say, real Catholics did not take this lightly. The SSPX issued a statement issued questioning it. Peter Kwasnieski went even further, and explained Why We Need Not (and Should Not) Call Paul VI ‘Saint’. Louie Verrechio, in his own particular way, had his take on this queer man being raised to the altars. I have no idea what NOChurch media wrote about this, but I am quite certain it was entirely uncritical.

With so many canonisations, and so many dubious, people have begun to wonder: What exactly are we to think of canonisations? Does it mean the same thing? Are we bound to accept these things? How come there are so many of them nowadays and every pope seems to get a halo as his retirement present. Well, Canonization: Old vs. New Comparison in Unam Sanctam Catholicam attempted to show us what has changed and it shows clearly that whereas the old process was concerned with the integrit of the process, the integrity of the faith, the new one seems to be more interested in expediting the process, and not so concerned with anything which might slow or halt a canonistaion.

Part of the problem with the McCanonisations, is that we often do not get to evaluate objectively what was done, as much of the information is still hidden. The McCarrick scandal, for instance, has done much to cloud John Paul II's legacy, since it has come to light that there were warnings about McCarrick long before he got made cardinal, and that he was promoted in spite of these warnings. We were informed by ChurchMilitant.tv that the Vatican is gigging the McCarrick Investigation so as to place the blame on Pope John Paul II, now sainted by NOChurch's saint factory, and deflect attention away from Bergoglio - soon-to-be-sainted by said factory. Mundabor saw in this proof that Bergoglio is clearly an atheist, arguing that no true Catholic would canonise someone and then question the man's virtues after he had been canonised. I shall not waste your time in pointing out that Bergoglio is not Catholic at all, since that much should be obvious from what I have written many times on this blog, but I agree with Mundabor that this can count as proof.

My take on that is the following: This is a classic case of Bergoglian intrigue. It's a case of "heads, I win; tails, you lose". By this I mean that Bergoglio wins his greater plan to destroy the Catholic faith no matter how it turns out if he implicates Pope John Paul II in the McCarrick scandal, and the stronger the implication, the stronger his victory, and there is a connection to Pope Paul VI here as well. Let me explain...

It is no secret that Bergoglio is partial to sodomy. There are strong reports that Pope Paul VI at least before he became pope was involved in sodomitical relationships of the homosexual nature. If it turns out that Pope Paul VI is definitely proved to have done this, then now that he is a 'saint', what Bergoglio will have done is to create the space for him to claim that homosexuality is no big deal, since even some saints were homosexual. If, however, it turns out that the blowback is so large, then he can tar all canonisations by saying that canonisations are not infallible, are not trustworthy, and therefore the Catholic faiith has no certainties. It is the same with McCarrick: If you pin the blame on Pope John Paul II, then you  say thatt McCarrick's perversions either were not that grave, or failinng that, that Pope John Paul II was a flawed pope, who still managed to become a saint, and therefore we can be as flawed as we like and still manage to become saints. One can expect him too caption it "canonisation is  medicine for a fall world, not a prize for the perfect", just as he does with Holy Communion.

So what are we to do, given all these canonisations, a large chunck of tthem highly dubious? Well, a piece on either Rorate Caeli or Novus Motus Liturgicus tackled this issue head on. The conclusion was that perhaps we do not need to take an all-or-nothing approach. Although the Church does not define canonisations as infallible, certainly not within the scope of the dogma of infallibility, we can still maintain that pre-Vatican II canonisations are infallible, while those after the process was changed are not infallible. If the intention and the matter of canonisation has changed, then surely this cannot be without consequence for how we approach them.

The zionists in occupied Palestine continued their aggression. It was in many ways inevitable, as not having Syria as a playground for their airforce, they were bound to find other victims for Etheir murderous appetites . Donald Trump withdrew from yet another treaty, this time the INF Treaty, yet again proving that he will stop at nothing to placate the war party, contrary to his many statements on the campaign trail speaking of a responsible foreign policy. There were reports that the U.S. helped coordinate the drone attack on Russia's aribase in Syria earlier this year , really to the surprise of nobody since the U.S. has admitted to helping the Islamists ever since the start of the Syrian war, which they themselves helped to...

The German problem colludes with the Bergoglio problem - Sunday 29th of April to Saturday 5th of May

There was a Pontifical High Mass held by a relatively young archbishop on the 28th of May. Much has been written about this Mass and especially the homily that accompanied it, but I would remiss if I did not take the opportunity to point out the fine work done by Olivia Rao in her article for The Remnant covering this event.

The piece was exemplary in its attention to detail and I especially enjoyed the list over all the celebrants. Virtually nothing was left to assumption, which is a rarity in modern reporting. Olivia Rao certainly deserves credit for her fine work and I hope to read much more from her in the future.

The archbishop in question was Achbishop Sample, one of the best bishops in the U.S. who for the most part gets it right and it was held at the Basilica of National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, the U.S. capital.  It is especially pleasing that he learnt the Tridentine Mass after Pope Benedict had issued Summorum Pontificum - the 10th anniversary of which the Mass was meant to celebrate (delayed due to construction issues ) - because he wanted to act in accordance with the pope's wishes. He says very reasonable things much of the time, with the odd Novusordoism from time to time, as even this homily proved.

The homily itself I must admit I have not listened to, but I have read a lot of reports on it and most of them have been positive. I have read, for instance, that he sees the liturgical revolution as a mistake, and he makes a point in highlighting that a lot of young people are attracted to the Tridentine Mass, thereby destroying the prejudice that it is a Mass which only caters to the "nostalgic", as Bergoglio put it.

He also spoke of "mutual enrichment" and this is the bit I don't like. I can certainly accept that he can't be seem to be making an unapologetic love poem to the authentic Roman Rite, but talk of mutual enrichment bothers me because it will inexorably lead us back to the mess which started all this stuff. Indeed, Tantumblogo had a similar reaction, writing "I also see basically no ways in which the Novus Ordo might enrich the TLM" and I cannot but agree. I do see one utility for the Novus Ordo though, and that is as a negative example. If the Tridentine Mass is Latin Rite worship as it should be, then the Novus Ordo Missae is 'worship' - or it's bad imitiation anyway - as it ought not to be. It serves the purpose of a cautionary tale, a warning to future generations of what to avoid and what not to do, and above all, of the dangers of allowing a bunch of atheists and heretics to butcher what is sacred for reasons most un-Catholic.

Christopher J. Malloy grapped with the question of aggiornamento in "Make Catholicism Relevant? Or Let it Be What it IS." I vote for the latter, for nothing is more irrelevant than something struggling to make itself relevant to fickle minds.

EcclesIsSaved continued his mocking of the bishops of England over their handling of the Alfie Evans case in "Eccles explains it to the bishops" and "English bishops to be replaced by jelly-babies", and the mockery is well-deserved. No insult is too great for these pathetic sorry excuses formen. In fact, Gloria.tv titled one of it's articles "Cardinal Nichols Defends Alfie's Murder" and I have to admit that the title is not misleading.

Donald Trump's admninistration's threats and warmongering continued, as newly-installed foreign minister (secretary of state as they call them over there) arrived in Saudi Arabia. I believe that was one of his first foreign trips. His very first foreign trip was to NATO headquarters if memory serves me right, which says a lot about the outlook of those serving in the Trump regime. In any case, when in Saudi Arabia he naturally didn't waste time threatening Iran.

The other Middle-Eastern state which receives  unconditionaly support from the U.S. is, of course, the zionist criminal state of Israel, whose crimes against the Palestinian people continue in full earnest in response to the Great Return March. Scores of unarmed and non-violent protesters have been short and killed, including journalists and medical personell. Bleeding-heart Trump and Ivanka cheer on, so I suppose we can only assume that whoever is in charge of their TV-watching has screened the broadcasts to leave out images of crying children, as no doubt they do when Trump watches images from Yemen. If we are to believe the 2017 Syrian false flag bombing, after all, we are to believe that Donald Trump launched strikes against Syria because bleeding-heart Ivanka saw images of suffering children and talked her daddy into bombing the bad man who was causing it.

One of my theories regarding why Donald Trump attacked Syria a month ago - following the 2018 hoax flag - is because he wanted to deflect attention away from the zionist crimes in Gaza. It worked largely well, as attention has mainly been on Syria since then.

In a rare piece of good news, the leaders of the two Koreas met last week and agreed to pursue peace and de-nuclearisation of the peninsula. Much credit has to go to Moon Jae-in, who has pursued an independent policy of seeking peace with the North and one suspects this has dragged Donald Trump into the process as he no doubts wants to claim the credit for it, as he does for much else even where he has had no hand in the achievement. That he took credit for 2017 being the safest year in aviation history, as well as taking credit for the defeat of ISIS in Syria, are two very glaring examples of this tendency.

The German problem continues in the Church, and this time it colluded...

Alfie Evans and another NOChurch disgrace, and perhaps Le Creep is the equal of Putin after all - Sunday 22nd to Saturday 28th of April

From Le Creep's mouth to your screen: "I'm the equal of Putin". This story would have quite likely have formed the body of the article had it not been for yet another infanticide committed by the British authorities in plain sight.

It's too good a story to leave without comment though so I'll simply state that the only way that Le Creep Macron is the equal of Putin is with regard to the ages of their wives. Given that Putin is (unfortunately) divorced and (possibly) remarried, I might have to qualify that statement and re-state it as "with regard to the ages of their first wives". In any case, Le Creep informed us that he had to bomb Syria to prove that he is the equal of Putin, which tells us that we have in charge of a nuclear-armed nation a man with very deep and disturbing issues.

Now to poor blessed Alfie Evans, the latest public victim of the totalitarian death cult that has swept over all of the 'West' and is firmly entrenched in the U.K., as was proved yet again this week.

We had a sweet boy who happened to have the misfortune of falling behind on his development milestones. Upon closer inspection it was revealed that he had a brain disorder. The doctors supposed to assist him decided he would be better off dead. The parents disagreed, took the hospital to court and kicked up a fuss over it. The father, Tom Evans, is a Catholic, but the mother is not. The parents were unmarried.

The court, under the power of a homosexual (from what I understand) homosexualist decided time and time again that it would be in the child's best interest to have life taken away from him. This came despite the fact that the parents had raised money to take him abroad for treatment, that there was a plane ready to take him to Italy, and that the Italian state even granted sweet Alfie Evans citizenship.

None of that mattered because if the state says you are do die in a hospital bed, you are to die in a hospital bed, if they have to kill you to make it happen. This they did, first taking him off life support, and if that was not enough, starving him. His death came some 5 days after being taken off life support and there are strong suspicions that he was actually poisoned.

Now, just like Charlie Gard last year, we have in this a classic example of statism gone wild. The U.K. government simply cannot allow someone - least of all a Catholic working class man - to counter the dictates of the pseudo-religious entity known as the NHS, for if the U.K. has a religion, it is the NHS and the belief that the NHS is a source of good like few others and therefore must be all-powerful. This is the reason why the U.K. fights so hard to have children dying in their hospitals, because the NHS said so and because it would be a source of national shame to have a child flown abroad, treated and brought back to health, after the NHS had condemned that child to an early death on account of having a life it deemed not worth living.

Just like Charlie Gard last year, it was so obvious what the right thing to do was that even Bergoglio could not resist interfering - either because he actually cared for the child (I doubt it) or because he wanted to win some cheap publicity points (much more likely).

Bergoglio's invervention, however, seems to have been the catalyst for yet another disgraceful actor to enter the scene: the archishop of Liverpool Malcolm McMahon. This pathetic excuse for an oxygen consumer actually came out publicly and sided with the government. He actually went to the trouble of flying out to Rome to meet with Bergoglio, and it seems, to tell him to tone down his opposition, because it is reported that the Vatican's support for the Evans' subsided following McMahon's visit. Presumably it is McMahon who provided the title for the satirical piece The Gospel according to St Malcolm by EcclesIsSaved. That piece was written upon the death of sweet Alfie and was a follow-up to Career options in the modern world which had taken aim at the characters in this tragedy.

I have read that in its original Greek usage, the term "tragedy" is applied to a series of events which have a very unfortunate outcome  which derive inexorably from the steps taken before the regrettable conclusion comes about. If this is true then the case of Alfie Evans is tragedy 101.

In it we can track the moral degradation of a society whose primary indentifying feature is being not Catholic, on account of a king who killed a number of his wives and broke from the Church in order to commit adultery without being chided for it. Instead of contrition, the Brits seem to be proud of this fact. This very state then allowed the killing of the unborn in then 1970s, sodomitical unions in the 2000s - the same period in which it was going around the world bombing virtually defenceless countries in pursuit of another country's militaristic hegemony - , and now practical euthanasia. Then we have a NOChurch which is so hell-bent on cosying up to the 'modern' world that it is willing to go along with every evil, only paying the occasional lip service to the poor and the needy - and not even that to Almighty God - when it feels that no consequences will flow from such empty gestures. Of course, then we have the feeble British, weakened by decades of inane political correctness and unable for the most part to formulate an independent opinion, and a government which knows full well that it can take advantage of such an idiocracy.

What right does anyone in Britain, or...

Pages

Subscribe to Donald Trump hypocrisy